DJANGO UNCHAINED (Quentin Tarantino 2012)

[Chris Knipp]

DJANGO UNCHAINED

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/gpM0tq.jpg
LEONARDO DICAPRIO, CHRISTOPH WALTZ, SAMUEL L. JACKSON AND JAMIE FOXX IN DJANGO UNCHAINED

Tarantino is serious and really angry about race in America (but still violent and comic) in his new movie about a black bounty hunter who saves his lady love from a vicious slave owner.

In Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino was angry about the Nazis and their persecution of the Jews. In his new movie Django Unchained he's even angrier about slavery in the Anti-Bellum South. More than ever he's working with pastiche, doing a seamless and dynamic blend of the Spaghetti Western (whose garish technicolor landscapes, fast shootouts and soaring music he gloriously evokes) with Seventies Blaxploitation movies, with their cool, sexy black superheroes. QT's font of inspiration will always be Seventies B-pictures, which is why a certain effete cinephile audience will never care for his work, however virtuoso his mastery of the medium. Like Mandingo or Nightjohn, Django closeups on the intersection of white plantation owners and their slaves. Like Boss Nigger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_Nigger), a 1975 Blaxploitation movie using a Spaghetti Western format, Django has a black bounty hunter as a protagonist, the titular hero (Jamie Foxx). The film also is said to be "spiritual successor" to Sergio Corbucci's "infamous" 1966 Italian western Django, with the latter's original star Franco Nero included in a minor role. This is a powerful movie, and it shows Tarantino once again working at or very near the top of his game.

For a while this is a salt-and-pepper buddy picture when Django, a slave, is freed to partner with a foreign-born bounty hunter and former dentist (or so he claims), Dr. King Schultz. Schultz is played by and was written for the multilingual Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, returning after his Cannes and Oscar Best Actor awarded performance as a Nazi officer in Basterds. This time the evil racist on the screen isn't Waltz but a dangerously charming Leonardo DiCaprio, playing Calvin Candie, a big-time Mandingo-fight specialist plantation owner whose ingratiating good humor masks a deeply repellent personality and mindset.

Compared to Basterds, Django is more underlyingly earnest. This is about an evil that for Americans is closer to home. As he made clear speaking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/07/quentin-tarantino-slavery-django-unchained)at a London preview screening, Tarantino has put his shock and anger about what he's learned of slavery into this movie, even as he revels in the cinematic references and the snappy dialogue: "I'm here to tell you," he told a Bafta (British Academy of Fine Arts & Television Arts) audience, "that however bad things get in the movie, a lot worse shit actually happened." Compared to Basterds, Django is also more unified -- its forward thrust little interrupted by its set pieces -- more directly, disturbingly violent, and less morally dubious. Again triumphant revenge is the theme.

This time, notably, unlike in Pulp Fiction (or even True Romance) the word "nigger," which peppers every scene, isn't tongue-in-cheek and provocatively funny, but the true currency of America's racist past hidden by today's cautious PC references to "the 'N' word." Obviously Boss Nigger wasn't shy about using the word, and Tarantino takes that 1975 movie's blunt ghetto message to the wide public this time. Forget Spielberg's tame "Scholastic Magazines" Lincoln: for all its Grindhouse pastiches and delight in verbal sparring, Django Unchained is a far more troubling look at the "American Dilemma." Django isn't as elaborate, complex, dazzling, or verbally intoxicating as many of Tarantino's earlier films. It doesn't meander as much and maybe isn't quite as much pure, irreverent fun. But it has a thrilling drive and an emotional conviction few of them can match, and its bloody shootouts using old fashioned movie techniques put contemporary CGI fakery to shame.

There is plenty of ugliness in this movie, and it takes the form not only of racist language and thought and shootouts but of on-screen slave beatings and Mandingo fights-to-the-death whose brutality and and Candie's condescension about them ("He is a rambunctious sort, ain't he?") are stunning. Tarantino excels at cat and mouse games, like Candie's with Schultz and Django: "You had my curiosity. Now you have my attention." And Schultz, like Candie, is good at this game. But when the time comes, the dentist-bounty hunter is sacrificed to the greater good, and Django takes over to be the lone cowboy hero who rides off into the sunset. Scenes of Calvin Candie's plantation, using Evergreen Plantation in Edgard, Louisiana, are images of stark contrast between southern grandeur and the unavoidable constant scattering of human chattel everywhere in sight. Tarantino is not interested in showing the genteel politesse of the South. DiCaprio's soft tones are enough of that.

Django Unchained isn't as talky as most of Tarantino's films or as elaborate as Inglourious Basterds and so its best scene stands out all the more. It's a kind of companion piece to the one in Basterds wherein Michael Fassbender as an English OSS officer posing as a Nazi gets gradually smoked out in a cellar bar. This time we're at the dinner table of the despicably callous and elegant Calvin Candie. Informed by Steve -- Samuel L. Jackson in a wonderfully hammy and complex performance as Candie's both uppity and fawning chief "house nigger" -- the plantation owner realizes that Django and Schultz are not there, as they pretend, to buy a Mandingo fighter but to free Django's wife, Brunhilda (Kerry Washington). With suave menace, Candie takes the skull of a former slave and chops it apart to give a chilling racist phrenolgy lecture justifying slavery and allegedly explaining slaves' failure to revolt. This is where we realize that DiCaprio was born to play this role -- how did Tarantino know? it's his genius that he always does -- and that this actor is just beginning. Forget J. Edgar. He needs to play Orson Welles, and Hemingway, an we can hardly wait to see his Gatsby.

Bad guys are always more interesting and Waltz is less exciting this time, though the combination of a slightly nerdy foreigner who coldly kills for money is an original one. As Django, Foxx is all the stronger for being understated, and when he goes into action, well, he kills everybody in sight. Perhaps the most terrifying character is Steve, Jackson's quisling, toady and buffoon. I think it's with Steve that we see how out-of-fashion and kitsch pastiche can be used to invoke historical realities more powerfully and authentically than the polite historical transcriptions of a Tony Kushner. Tarantino, after all, isn't just a Grindhouse fanboy. He turns out to be digging around for emotional and intellectual realities, looking ugly historical truths in the eye.

Where Tarantino's coming from is clear when, an agreement seemingly in the bag, Schultz takes a moment off to stop a woman from playing Beentoven's "Für Elise" on the harp in Candie's drawing room. He will not have a German composer who championed freedom played in such a place, and he will rather risk armed confrontation in a hostile environment than shake this slave owner's hand to close a deal. I don't know about you, but watching Django Unchained leaves me a little shattered. Tarantino still works in the same ways but he seems to have gotten more serious, under the screen dazzle.

Django Unchained, 165mins, opens Christmas Day 2012.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/3894/squentintarantinolarge.jpg

Interesting, Tarantino gets into a lengthy discussion of a major plot point (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained_n_2340987.html)of DJANGO UNCHAINED with a writer for The Huffington Post. This reveals a lot about how the writer/director thinks about his characters (and plots, naturally) and also his down-to-earth willingness to talk to people. Tarantino convincingly argues that Ryan, his opponent, who said the plot point was "harebrained," was thinking like himself and not like the character.

[cinemabon]

As you know, I am opposed to overt violence of the type Tarantino exploits to the nth degree. This recent article on the Huffington Post website is an illumination on another viewpoint.

"If we lavished similar imagination upon the history of the blacks who fought for the British during the American revolution to escape slavery, the German Coast uprising, the Prosser and Vesey rebellions, the 'Crazy as St. Paul' Nat Turner rebellion, the Black Seminole rebellion of 1835, the innumerable anecdotal tales of black resistance against slave-owners, perhaps we wouldn't glom onto the work of a white director who (with his infantile insistence on his right to fling the word "nigger") seems frightfully similar to the clueless character in Lou Reed's infamous, "I Wanna be Black." If we taught ourselves to regard the Civil War as "a failed war to protect and extend slavery," and not "a war to free the slaves," we would be less seduced by the siren song of second-hand revenge fantasy. If we debated among ourselves the virtues and vices of real old-west outlaws like the notorious Rufus Buck Gang, Cherokee Bill and Isom Dart, perhaps one white man's notion of blacks in the old west would be less noteworthy. If we knew that black freedman populated Indian Territory and that a black lawman named Bass Reeves served as a Deputy U.S. Marshall for "Hanging Judge" Isaac Parker, we'd have a far richer, more complex view of our history than that promoted by the likes of Hollywood and Tarantino."

Article located here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonce-gaiter/django-unchained_b_2381878.html

[cinemabon]

"Tarantino is dangerously in love with the look of evil, and all he can counter it with is cool—not strength of purpose, let alone goodness of heart, but simple comeuppance, issued with merciless panache. That is what Django delivers, and it’s the least that Candie deserves, together with other defenders of the Southern status quo: such, at any rate, will be the claim of Tarantino’s fans, although I was disturbed by their yelps of triumphant laughter, at the screening I attended, as a white woman was blown away by Django’s gun. By the time Tarantino shows up as a redneck with an unexplained Australian accent, “Django Unchained” has mislaid its melancholy, and its bitter wit, and become a raucous romp. It is a tribute to the spaghetti Western, cooked al dente, then cooked a while more, and finally sauced to death."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2013/01/07/130107crci_cinema_lane#ixzz2HGVofeFj

[Chris Knipp]

But read "Django Unchained wins over black audience despite Spike Lee criticism" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/jan/03/django-unchained-spike-lee) in the Guardian, and note Samuel L. Jackson's response when pressured to defend the use of "nigger" in DJANGO. Those who call the use of the word "infantile" seem to ignore the realities of black and Southern white speech.

When you say "As you know, I am opposed to overt violence of the type Tarantino exploits to the nth degree," no, I don't know, and I don't know what you mean by "overt violence of the type Tarantino exploits" (does he exploit it to the "nth degree" or do you oppose it to the "nth degree"?).

There are always people who rather mindlessly oppose Tarantino's filmmaking. I'm sorry you are missing out on one of the best movies of the year; that's all. But then, you're also not going to see LES MISERABLES. You make a thing of avoiding movies. I don't. I go to see them. And then I make my judgments as to their worth. There is usually someething worthwhile in all of them, even JACK REACHER, though recommending that and rejecting another film you've probably not seen has little value on a film discussion site. It's not worthy of a person with your obvious depth of cinematic knowledge, cinemabon.

[cinemabon]

Read "The Emperor's Clothes."

This self-congratulatory intellectual masturbation that is performed by critics every time a new Tarantino movie comes out is appalling to me. He has carefully crafted friendships in the film industry down through the years, but the level of violence in his movies is anything but humorous to me. It is well known and documented. That sort of OVERT, Chris... look up the damn word... overt violence is blatant and unnecessary when it comes to telling a story and does not reflect on any part of life except the most perverse. To watch it and enjoy it is part of the voyuerism that is pervasive in advanced cultures (read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and other works that point out the degeneracy that follows when societies begin to accept an increasing level of violence as entertainment). Tarantino is a master of this and the so-called film intellectual community of critics has fallen in line to praise him as a great artist when he is nothing but a peddler of smut.

That, of course, is my personal opinion... but it wouldn't be difficult to find support for that argument. I know you don't agree. You can say it till the cows come home. But my conclusions about his films are true and you can put as much window dressing as you want on the matter, invisible clothes, but it won't change the fact - ripping people's heads off in slow motion with blood spurting everywhere is the kind of visual sport that only the most degenerate individual would find pleasurable. Think about your reactions to such images, think about what it is that you are feeling, how you've been trained to feel, what you've been allowed to accept, taught to accept, and have it reinforced by your peers... think about the process in your mind, the depths to which it affects your perception of the world, BEFRORE you criticize someone else for calling it overt.

[Chris Knipp]

Very well, you oppose something that is indeed nasty, the celebration of violence for its own sake. But is this statement based on seeing Tarantino's movies or just thinking about them? This thread is about DJANGO UNCHAINED. So anyone who finds QT's movies pleasurable is degenerate? Then I am happy to align myself with the degenerates. And among them apparently are critics, whom you accuse of an appalling level of intellectual masturbation, and the whole film industry, which is mesmerized or held captive because the villainous QT has "carefully crafted friendships in the film industry down through the years," thus enabling himself to get away with unmentionable offenses while studio heads and tastemakers look the other way or nod approvingly. Wow. How did I fail to notice that this was going on and deceive myself into thinking that I was watching the work of an original and brilliant filmmaker?

[cinemabon]

The culture of violence is as easy to accept as one glosses over the images of painted women made up to exploit our appreciation for beauty, an exploitation nonetheless. That our society in particular should be so obsessed with guns and gun violence is a matter of public record. Last year represents one of the bloodiest on record and the sales of guns continues to rise at an alarming rate. One can only wonder where the next gunman will strike next with impunity to settle his/her dispute by the use of violence.

This idea that desputes of any kind are best resolved by the use of a gun is not peculiar to America. However, we have certainly led the world in exploiting that market and as a filmmaker, the lure of that profit is difficult to avoid. That you and others are attracted by this so-called artform does not make you any less human. On the contrary, your numbers are sufficiently high to make your fraternity far more acceptable than mine.

[Johann]

This movie was brilliant. One of the best films of the year. Of any year.

[Johann]

If I were black, this would be a movie to help me heal. No joke.

Quentin Tarantino has once again re-imagined history and served us up something raw and real that made me pump my fist in the air.
That scene where Django unleashes that whip on that honky plantation lackey who was hitting black women...Holy Mary was that awesome.
Robert Richardson should win a cinematography Oscar for this.
The melding of Leone, hip-hop, history, and bravado acting is so freakin' SWEET you can't believe it.
Tarantino is still taking inspiration from his Heroes. He even has cameos from Don Stroud, Tom Wopat and the original Django Franco Nero.

Django Unchained kicks ass and takes names. Period.
It's MOVIE VIOLENCE cinemabon. Mimicking the real thing, which was much worse than what is shown in the movie. Much more horrifying.

Such as:

Burying a slave up to his neck after running away. Smearing his head with honey. Right in front of a red ant colony.

That's just one story. And that story is more horrifying than what Quentin showed.
Movies like this get people talking. Audiences do not need gift-wrapped movies all the time.
Sometimes you need a jolt, a shake-up.

[Chris Knipp]

During the telephone call, Reacher warns the sniper that if he harmed the girl, he would beat him to death. However, having already killed the innocent clerk from the auto parts store, Reacher beats him to death anyway. In the novels, Reacher never allows any of his villains to simply go to jail.
--cinemabon on the JACK REACHER review thread.

I note that you condone this brutality when it occurs in a modern-day crime drama. And yet you rail against the violence in Quentin Tarantino's obvious pastiche of Sixties and Seventies Blaxploitation and Spaghetti Western movies in DJANGO UNCHAIANED.

Here is the entry for the original DJANGO Spaghetti Western starring Franco Nero on Netflix:


Django1966NR91 minutes
In a lawless frontier, a master gunman carries a dark secret -- and a coffin filled with chaos. Franco Nero stars as Django, a mysterious stranger caught up in the violent crossfire between Mexican bandits and sadistic vigilantes. This landmark classic is packed with indelible images and some of the most shocking brutality of any Spaghetti Western ever made. Fully restored from original camera negatives.

Cast:Franco Nero, Rafael Albaicín, Simón Arriaga, José Canalejas, Erik Schippers, Gino Pernice, Angel Alvarez, Jose Bodalo, Eduardo Fajardo, Loredana Nusciak, Giovanni Ivan Scratuglia, Donald Pleasence
Genre:Foreign Classics, Foreign Action & Adventure, Italy, Foreign

Highlighting mine. But, cinemabon, you talk about American violence. How about Japanese film violence? Korean film violence? Italian film violence? You object to the violence in DJANGO UNCHAINED, which you apparently have not seen, but not to the brutality of JACK REACHER, which you have seen and like. I've seen both films. To me, the violence in the first part of DJANGO UNCHAINED has a great deal of meaning to it. It's part of representing the brutality of slavery in America. I'm not objecting to the brutality in JACK REACHER. It just is a much less interesting or accomplished film, and I do not find the violence in DJANGO UNCHAINED more morally reprehensible than that of JACK REACHER.

[Johann]

No one here is literally bloodthirsty, are they? I'm not.
Movies provide a platform to show this kind of thing and not go to prison. It's "make-believe" in a very real way.
But the subject matter of some movies rises above mere brutal violence. The context is so important...

Condemning "excessive" "extreme" or "gratuitious" violence in movies is kind of ridiculous.
Violent action and horror movies reign supreme in a lot of corners of the globe. There's a lot of excessive violence in Lord of the Rings, Isn't there?
I smell a little hypocrisy, cinemabon.

[Chris Knipp]

It's MOVIE VIOLENCE cinemabon. Mimicking the real thing, which was much worse than what is shown in the movie. Much more horrifying.

That's what I was trying to say, johann (our posts overlapped: mine should have come before your last). This is what I quoted QT saying to the London premiere audience in my review: much worse shit happened in real life if you study the history. I think the violence in DJANGO UNCHAINED has more point to it than the violence of this pulpy Jack Reacher character. As for how African Americans respond to QT's new movie, I think that varies widely, but I liked the information that an interviewer (I've lost the source; I might be able to find it again though) who insisted Samuel L. Jackson justify or explain the use of the word "nigger" so frequently, but refused to use the word, Jackson said use the word, and I'll answer your question. End of discussion. But black people differ on that aspect too. Bottom line: Tarantino arouses strong reactions in people, but there is an audience out that that loves his movies, and that's the great thing because he is provocative and nutty and he is also a great filmmaker.

You put it much better than I could, Johann -- welcome back; you're much needed. Conntext is indeed important, and I don't think screen violence is what makes America a violent country or, as I just said, that we hve the monopoly on it. We just make more widely seen movies than anybody else.


Condemning "excessive" "extreme" or "gratuitious" violence in movies is kind of ridiculous.
Violent action and horror movies reign supreme in a lot corners of the globe. There's a lot of ecessive violence in Lord of the Rings? Isn't there.

Exactly. I want to discuss individual movies and not pontificate about the nature of movies or shake my head at their bad influence.

This issue might be more germane to the ZERO DARK THIRTY "torture" controversy, and I hope you see it, though I don't think there's any answer except that Bigelow and Boal's position on all the stuff they show in that movie is ambiguous and I don't find that very satisfying, in this case.

[Johann]

Tarantino definitely arouses emotions in people. People love him or hate him.

But I think the people who hate him don't get him. They don't see what he's doing, which in my view is VERY noble: stirring the pot, while making his filmography even greater. He just keeps hitting Grand Slams in my opinion. Django Unchained is AWESOME. Call me a fanboy. I am. And I also know what makes a great film, and this one has it all. Tarantino is giving us movies we need. Revenge fantasies? Yep.

Nuthin' wrong with that at all. Movies give a catharsis that real life sometimes cannot provide.

LET'S MAKE A LITTLE NOISE, COLORADO....

[cinemabon]

Chris, you aren't seriously comparing what I said about Jack Reacher and saying "this is what happened in the movie" because it isn't. First of all, nothing is really shown, is it? Whereas, according to every friend and relative I know who saw the damn movie, the violence in "Django" leaves nothing to imagination. Every so called "shot" in "Reacher" is cut away and does not show it actually being carried out. Whereas, "Django" the violence is graphic and quite literal. There is a difference and to claim otherwise is to perpetuate ignorance.

[cinemabon]

Further, why are you wanting to compare the violence in any movie with Tarantino? If you want to compare other movies to the level of graphic violence in a Tarantino film, you'd have to compare his movies with horror movies that show very graphic violence, not the kind shown in "Jack Reacher." I mean, really, Chris. This isn't about me. It's about that movie you love and can't admit it is chock full of the kind of graphic images you've come to accept as being acceptable levels of violence to tell a story. What is it inside you that allows that to happen? At what point in your life did you to come to the realization that graphic violence is entertainment? Weren't you ever frightened by it? If you saw that on the street, would you stand by and stare at it, unfeeling? Because that is what is happening right now in places like India and Pakistan where violence is carried out every day and the populace stands by and watches as if that is the norm. I find it deplorable and will continue to speak out about it. The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves.

[Chris Knipp]

jJACK REACHER begins with a sniper's merciless killing of five victims whom we see hit and who fall dead before our eyes. It continues with a brutal (yes, unseen) beating that lands a man in the hospital in a coma and continues through a series of brutal hand-to-hand encounters in which men are maimed or killed, and winds up with a shootout in which a bunch of people are killed. And that's okay, and we dare not compare it with the "graphic violence" of friend Tarantino.

Obviously you don't "get" Tarantino; you think his movies too full of "graphic violence," and so now you condemn them from a distance. But to judge a movie you have not seen is a palty, pointless business. And so we can't have this discussion.

Nor are my or your views about "violence" in the world relevant here. More to the point is not the violence in DJANGO UNCHAINED but the "noble" pursuit Johann alludes to, its angry denunciation of slavery in the Anti-Bellum American South. Peter Bradshaw, of the Guardian, writes an enthusiastic review (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/12/django-unchained-first-look-review)of DJANGO. HE says, among other things, "Slavery is a subject on which Hollywood is traditionally nervous and reticent. Perhaps it takes a film unencumbered with good taste to tackle it. Lars Von Trier's Manderlay was one. Here is another." "Just to make liberals everywhere uneasy," Bradshaw says, "Tarantino and [Samuel L.] Jackson make Stephen the biggest, nastiest "Uncle Tom" ever: utterly loyal to his white master, and severe in his management of the below-stairs race in the Big House." Stephan/Jackson "and Tarantino drop the satirical N-bomb, targeted with sadistic tactlessness and muscular bad taste at the white man's Vichyite collaborators in the Old South." That's how DJANGO operates, as Tarantino always has, by shocking and provoking. But this time there is a new seriousness. QT was angry at the Nazis in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS," but he is much more angry at the white southern slave owners. This isn't India or Pakistan, or one of America's school or movie theater massacres: it's our American history. And as always, Tarantino has brilliant fun with his material as well.

Read Roger Ebert's Journal entry, (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/01/django_unchained.html) "Faster, Quentin! Thrill! Thrill!" He observes: "What Tarantino has is an appreciation for gut-level exploitation film appeal, combined with an artist's desire to transform that gut element with something higher, better, more daring. His films challenge taboos in our society in the most direct possible way, and at the same time add an element of parody or satire." This is what you don't get, I guess. But how could you get anything, without seeing the movie? We can't have this discussion.

You admire Ebert, cinembon, don't you? You just with justification praised his critical acumen in reviewing the 1982 PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. His original review of DJANGO UNCHAINED was a Metacritic 100. How could your admired Chicago critic be so wrong?

But you can't find out, because you won't see the film, and so we can't have this discussion.

I note as you point out that Anthony Lane, whose witty demolition of LES MISERABLES the film, which I quoted on the "Les Miz" thread, is the first half of the review you linked to above (thanks) in which he condemns the last part of DJANGO. And he has a point there. I would have done the last part of DJANGO differently. But I'm not Quentin Tarantino, and I could never be. He's a genius, who makes his own rules. I'm sorry Lane didn't wind up likeing DJANGO (though he admires the first part of it quite a lot), but I might point out that The New Yorker reviewer, I think perhaps Lane then too, dismissed Tarantino's PULP FICTION when it came out too, so as far as I can see, they don't have a good record on Tarantino.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7883/djangounchained500pix.jpg

From the concluding paragraphs of Roger Ebert's rather long article in his Journal, (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/01/django_unchained.html) "Faster, Quentin! Thrill! Thrill!" ( I couldn't resist reproducing the piece's illustration.)
"Django" has been criticized for its overuse of the n-word, a long-standing charge against Tarantino. In this case, although the total comes to over 100, I understood it as a word in common daily use through the antebellum South. In context, there was a reason for it. The film has also been attacked for its incredible level of violence, and that's what I was responding to in composing my imaginary letter to Tarantino. Yes, it deserves its R rating and in an earlier day might have drawn the X. But it's not what a film does but how it does it, and in one sense the violence here reflects Tarantino's desire to break through audience's comfort level for exploitation films and insist, yes, this was a society and culture that was inhuman.

Tarantino attacks at all levels. One of his most inspired scenes involves the Klan members bitching and moaning that they can't see through the eye-holes on the hoods over their heads. In everything but subject, that could be from a Looney Tunes movie. QT is grandiose and pragmatic, he plays freely with implausibility, he gets his customers inside the tent and then gives them a carny show they're hardly prepared for. He is a consummate filmmaker.
--Roger Ebert, January 7, 2013.
http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/9436/djangounchainedklan.jpg

[cinemabon]

The discussion on guns will continue as I know you see it expressed in film one way and I see it differently. I respect your right to an opinion not simply because it is part of our constitution, but also because you are an artist gifted both in verbosity and graphically. However, this society in which we are both a part has a cancer (aka John Dean) that is growing, a sickness, a malady that is tearing this country apart... and it has nothing to do with freedom of expression or the second amendment. It has to do with fear, that some how if we have a restriction on this right to bear arms it will give rise to another Adolf Hitler or a Stalin. The problem with that logic is this nation never had a Hitler or Stalin because this country has been true to its constitution since its inception. The only time we ever battled over any internal uprising, the Civil War, we did so out of fear of having "our slaves" taken away. This battle with our fears... of having things taken away... must end, and so must our blood lust. It is one thing to show a person fall after being shot. It is another to show how a bullet rips through flesh in slow motion repeatedly to the sound of dramatic music... and that difference is what lies at the heart of the matter. How far does art have to go to violate the expression of which we hold so dear? Are there no limits?

[Chris Knipp]

I know where you're coming from and I thoroughly agree with you on gun control and the need to reduce violence in this country. The rule of the gun lobby needs to be broken. Moreover this is the chief military nation in the world . . . but I feel it is out of place to discuss this. Yes, go on talking about it. Go into the streets about it. Write your congressman and your local officials about it. But this particular place is a thread ab out Quentin Tarantinio's new movie, DJANGO UNCHAINED. You don't seem to have seen it.

Try the LOUNGE section (http://www.filmleaf.net/forumdisplay.php?13-Lounge). You've been there, haven't you? Johann and I have spent a lot of time there, and that's where I put my political commentary, rather in the General Film Forum. I've always pushed for this, keeping to the topic of each thread. It has nothing to do with this particular movie or guns and violence or the NRA, etc.

The Lounge section: http://www.filmleaf.net/forumdisplay.php?13-Lounge.

[cinemabon]

The discussion of violence in media, especially in the films of Tarantino, is relevent here. I would agree that further discussion on gun control in another forum is also preferable.

[Johann]

Ebert reads Quentin Tarantino in a good way I think.

Gun control is also not really relevant here. This is an Angry Man race film, and the angry man is Tarantino, a white man.
I think that is what is upsetting Spike Lee about Django. That a white man made it, just like he said no white man could make Malcolm X.
A white man could, but would it ever match what Spike and Denzel did? Hell no.
Spike says that Django insults his ancestors and will not see it.
Spike! I sat in a theatre in Toronto on Boxing Day with many blacks in the audience, and guess what, they LOVED that movie. People were stoked.
To see real emotional revenge dished out in such outrageous and CINEMATIC style (OSCAR for Robert Richardson please.) was awesome.

If you love movies, how can you not love Django Unchained?

[Chris Knipp]

Is that so, Johann? I didn't know that, because I don't follow Ebert that closely. He does brag of meeting and talking with QT at Cannes when he came there with PULP FICTION. Ebert includes PULP FICTION in a series of discussions of "Great Movies. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20010610/REVIEWS08/106100301/1023)" Ebert's original 1994 review of PULP FICTION (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19941014/REVIEWS/410140304/1023)has nothing unfavorable in it, except for his initial remark that when he saw it at Cannes he "knew it was one of the year's best films, or one of the worst." He clearly doesn't conclude that it's one of the worst.
The screenplay, by Tarantino and Roger Avary, is so well-written in a scruffy, fanzine way that you want to rub noses in it - the noses of those zombie writers who take "screenwriting" classes that teach them the formulas for "hit films." Like "Citizen Kane," "Pulp Fiction" is constructed in such a nonlinear way that you could see it a dozen times and not be able to remember what comes next. It doubles back on itself, telling several interlocking stories about characters who inhabit a world of crime and intrigue, triple-crosses and loud desperation. The title is perfect. Like those old pulp mags named "Thrilling Wonder Stories" and "Official Detective," the movie creates a world where there are no normal people and no ordinary days - where breathless prose clatters down fire escapes and leaps into the dumpster of doom.
--Ebert, 1994.He seems to think that QT's working in a video store may be more "folklore" than fact. I'd like to check into that. Ebert doesn't always get his own facts completely right. On the other hand he has seen everything and met everybody, and that helps. I think Ebert "gets" Tarantino very well, and has done for a long time.
But it isn't the structure that makes ``Pulp Fiction'' a great film. Its greatness comes from its marriage of vividly original characters with a series of vivid and half-fanciful events_and from the dialogue. The dialogue is the foundation of everything else.
11
-- Ebert, 2001. Ebert recognizes that Tarantino can make a great movie or a bad movie, because he is so in love with every shot, he can't edit himself very well. But he heaps praise on him.

Sure, cinembon, the issue of violence in DJANGO is relevant to a discussion of the film. However cinemabon we can't discuss it till you've seen the film. And you have not seen it. I don't think I'll have much more to say about this till I watch the original Italian DJANGO. (There are a number of DJANGOs and related movies....) I partly want to examine it in terms of the violence in spaghetti westerns, which is where the framework of the new movie largely comes from.

In the same way I do not want to discuss the issue of torture in ZERO DARK THIRTY with somebody who has not seen ZERO DARK THIRTY. We have to be on the same page. YOu have to experience the movie and see if your theory holds up in practice or you are simply mouthing a set of principles that might break down when you see a brilliant and thoughtful movie.

[Johann]

Ebert's a passionate movie lover, and I relate to that. I don't always get the facts right either. I paraphrase more than ever. :)

I disagree with Ebert on some reviews, but a lot more I disagreed with on Pauline Kael.
Ebert won a Pulitizer Prize for film criticism. I tip my hat to a man who's good enough to win that. I think he was the first.

[Chris Knipp]

Pauline was far more provocative -- and original. Her reviews when they came out were exciting reads. I subscribed to The New Yorker and I opened it eagerly and went right to her review -- or Penelope Gilliatt's, which weren't as exciting, but at least were completely different. I find Ebert better when he goes back and I go back to see his reconsideration of a film and I say: Oh yeah, he got that right. I cited a lengthy reexamination of DJANGO UNCHAINED (silhouette)by Ebert right above where there is the read picture silhouetting Waltz and Foxx.

Here's more about QT from Ebert from Ebert's original review of PULP FICTION:
The screenplay, by Tarantino and Roger Avary, is so well-written in a scruffy, fanzine way that you want to rub noses in it - the noses of those zombie writers who take "screenwriting" classes that teach them the formulas for "hit films." Like "Citizen Kane," "Pulp Fiction" is constructed in such a nonlinear way that you could see it a dozen times and not be able to remember what comes next. It doubles back on itself, telling several interlocking stories about characters who inhabit a world of crime and intrigue, triple-crosses and loud desperation. The title is perfect. Like those old pulp mags named "Thrilling Wonder Stories" and "Official Detective," the movie creates a world where there are no normal people and no ordinary days - where breathless prose clatters down fire escapes and leaps into the dumpster of doom.

[Johann]

Good writing on movies is harder to find for me than others. Ebert cuts to the chase. He gives you something to work with.
Pauline Kael will always be referred to and she should be. She had a very real love of movies too, but saw them in a much more provocative way, agreed. Ebert isn't trying to provoke. He's just giving a barometer, with his own tastes, like Leonard Maltin.

Tarantino says he likes to read film writing in bed, get right into it.

Norman Mailer was a writer with a lot to say about film, and even made his own. So did William S. Burroughs and his cut-ups.
And Truffaut. And Godard....and others.

[Johann]

Getting back to Django Unchained, (nice photos by the way Chris- they add a nice bit of style to the page) the story isn't so much about slavery as it is about a man who wants to get his woman back at any cost. This is a LOVE STORY, actually, and it just happens to have the emotions ratcheted up to a very high notch. Tarantino does not fuck around or mince words here. No he does not. He opens it up with a wacky scene of Dentist Dr. Shultz (an amazing Cristof Waltz- Oscar winner too? He earned it again...) taking Django violently off a chain gang, and the humour of it is also a stunner for a viewer. I'm supposed to feel what, here? humour? And Horror? at the same time?

People do not like this kind of grab-you-by-the-goo-goo. LOL

[Chris Knipp]

You are absolutely right: many (or other critics anyway) have emphasized this is a love story. It is that. But it also (as a follow-up to Inglorious Basterds) a revenge flick reflecting QT's anger about the ugly truth of slavery in America. So it's general in that way and specific in the other way. But you're right to point this out emphatically. And it's good to have you back here, now.

[Every page needs livening up, visually as well as verbally.]

[cinemabon]

I'm with Spike Lee on this one, but for different reasons. And I'll take advice from my daughter, "Dad, this movie is so violent, I know you wouldn't like it." I trust her judgment and her level of intelligence.

However, keeping an open mind, I researched what others had to say about Tarantino and the history of violence in his films, coming across this article in Mother Jones magazine that is both insightful and powerful in its argument, which I find difficult to despute as it is articulated well.

http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/01/tarantino-django-unchained-western-racism-violence

As a further note, read some of the comments associated with the article. There are many black people offended by the subject matter of the film and have stayed away as to what they've heard in rumor (as did Spike Lee). This should not reflect on the content of the film as, and in my case, it is difficult to judge that which you have not seen or experienced.

[cinemabon]

The original with Franco Nero (who also happened to play Lancelot in that terrible movie, "Camelot")

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060315/combined

The trailer actually looked pretty cool

[Chris Knipp]

The Franco Nero "original" (misleading word here though) is on my Netflix list and I'll be watching it soon and will comment on it here when I do.

There are many people who stay away from films because they are too this or too that or too the other. It does not matter what the color of their skin is. They are not the people with whom one can have an intelligent discussion of films. So once again, we cannot have this discussion.

Thanks, however, for the link to the Mother Jones piece, "In Defense of Django," (http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2013/01/tarantino-django-unchained-western-racism-violence)by Adam Serwer, which sheds a bit more (positive) light on the new movie's genre implications in relation to slavery and racism. However, I would advise anyone who reads that or this thread simply see DJANGO UNCHAINED.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1059/djangounchainedjamiefox.jpg
Illustration from "In defense of Django"


Django, like many Tarantino films, also has been criticized as cartoonishly violent, but it is only so when Django is killing slave owners and overseers. The violence against slaves is always appropriately terrifying. This, if nothing else, puts Django in the running for Tarantino's best film, the first one in which he discovers violence as horror rather than just spectacle.
--Adam Serwer, "In Defense of Django, Mother Jones.

[Johann]

I read in the paper today that action figures from Django Unchained are being denounced by prominent blacks, Al Sharpton, for instance, saying that these toys are meant for children and they insult the black ancestors, just like the movie.

The movie is R rated. It's for adults. Anyone who lets their kid go see this unchecked and unquestioned is an idiot.
And if you can't sit down with them and hash it out, then you are abdicating your role as parent.
Blind denunciation of this film is wrong.
Tarantino could be lynched himself if he was on the wrong side of race relations and history. But he is not.
He pulled it off, and he deserves massive credit for it. It takes balls to do this and make it work.
Cast members (Foxx, Jackson, etc.) should be more vocal about what the film means and what context it should be taken in.

Blindly condemning this film is perpetuating ignorance.

Excellent addition to this thread, Chris.

[Chris Knipp]

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/992/djangounchainedactionfi.jpg

I'd wager that a high percentage of the people who rail against a film as a menace are those who have not seen it.


I'm with Spike Lee on this one, but for different reasons. And I'll take advice from my daughter, "Dad, this movie is so violent, I know you wouldn't like it." I trust her judgment and her level of intelligence.

Spike Lee is a person who likes to sound off, apparently at times without knowing what he's talking about. He has not made a good movie lately. Quentin Tarantino has.


And I'll take advice from my daughter, "Dad, this movie is so violent, I know you wouldn't like it." I trust her judgment and her level of intelligence. I marvel that you find this nugget interesting to post on a film discussion site. It's a little like saying "I think I'll stay in bed today. It's so chilly and nasty out." Okay, granny. So what?

[Johann]

I have a lot of respect for Spike Lee, but he definitely sounds off sometimes without thinking.
I'd like to see him make a counter-film to Django, but we know he won't.
He's had a beef with Tarantino ever since Pulp Fiction, which was also laced with the N-word.
Spike said he enjoyed Pulp Fiction but wondered if Quentin wanted to be "an Honorary Black Man".

Tarantino probably enjoys his "feud" with Spike. No matter how hard he tries, Spike cannot outright label Quentin a racist.
And I know Spike wants to...you can feel it in his interviews. He is simmering and smoldering over this.

[Johann]

Leonardo DiCaprio has the best scene in this movie, by the way.

When he smears Broomhilda's face at the table with Django and Schultz....HOLY FUCKBALLS!!!
I loved it.
Leo was deliciously evil in this movie. Deliciously EVIL. He played a ROLE!


I want those action figures too.
This movie is empowering, whether you're black or not.
Why can't people see that?

[Johann]

I also have figured out what "issues" Will Smith had with the role.

Can't go The Full Monty, Will?
Can't reveal your manhood to the world?
Is your todger tiny or are you just not that fearless?

[Johann]

Just a note for fanboys:

The action figures for Django Unchained have been recalled, due to widespread outrage over the film.
Some blacks are not happy with the film at all and have labelled it outright racist.
Silver Snail comics in Toronto has said that they "may have gotten under the wire" for ordering the figures, but we'll have to wait and see.
The owner said they may now only get the 12- inch figures, not the six-inchers.

And the comics adaptation of the film is by Vertigo Comics, a six-part series (I have the first two issues).
Tarantino writes the introduction, and he says his favorite comics were always WESTERN comics, and that this series by Vertigo is THE COMPLETE SCRIPT of the film. His first draft, actually. So if you want the whole enchilada on Django Unchained, then BUY this series- it's already into it's second printing!
The artwork makes the characters even more cool than the movie!
This was intentional. Check it out.

I LIKE THE WAY YOU DIE, BOY!

[Chris Knipp]

I don't know about that. Some blacks, yes. Some people always object to anything, and Tarantino is provocative. The attack I saw was horribly written and unintelligent. I doubt that the black population is universally opposed to a a film that gives virtually career-defining roles to Kerry Washington, Jamie Foxx, and Samuel L. Jackson, as well as others. About the action figures being recalled, I don't know.

[Johann]

I would object to action figures if the movie WAS in fact racist.
But intelligent people know it's not racist.
It is definitely provocative (the line about bags not fitting properly and then "full regalia" by Quentin himself comes to mind) but it's provocative for a larger purpose: giving cinema a new and truly awesome Black Hero.

Will Smith's Hancock and I AM LEGEND are left in the fucking DUST by Django. What an opportunity he missed....

[Johann]

The Weinstein Company itself has recalled the figures, much like how Stanley Kubrick himself pulled his own film (Clockwork Orange) from circulation in 1972.
In a statement, the company said action figures have been made for most of Tarantino's films, and were meant for collectors aged 17 and up, just LIKE THE FILM WAS.

[cinemabon]

I was very concerned how black members of the audience felt after seeing the film and (after questioning) generally received a response that was favorable. I believe most people (whites and blacks) feel that Tarantino created a hero in Jamie Foxx as he triumphs over all (including the "uncle tom" character) in the end. The uplifting message gave audiences something to cheer about, that a black man could prevail over evil and social injustice. That is the message I interpreted.

[Chris Knipp]

This is an interesting question but not easy for us to answer by questioning a few black audience members or citing a few articles or reviews by black writers as we've done, not one that can be answered at all till more time has passed. Obviously some blacks stepped forward to attack DJANGO (Spike Lee, the badly written Counterpunch article, Ishmael Reed, the film critic Armond White) because they don't like Tarantino's tone, or any white person writing about slavery, particularly in a "flip" manner (the Guardian word), don't even like Jackson and Foxx for acting in Tarantino's picture, which they think makes them opportunists and Uncle Toms. Is Tarantino a racist? Or is the Oscar Night joke right that QT's use of the N-word is okay because he think's he's black? : ) Unfortunately discussions quickly depart from the movie itself. I'll stick to my original statement that Tarantino, as his intro at the London screening showed, was made angry by what he learned about slavery, angrier than he was about the Nazis. Is all this none of his business? To me an artist if he's good (and I think Tarantino is way good) has a right to talk about whatever interests him, pretty much. And it is very obvious that he has always been interested in Afriacn Americans...

[Johann]

Both bang-on, Chris and cinemabon.
Bang-on.

It's tricky and a slippery slope to say in concrete terms who has the right to make certain films and who may just be provoking for the sake of provoking. Tarantino was angry, and so should ANYBODY over what happened with regards to slavery.
It was a human rights catastrophe, and whenever I think about slavery, I am utterly ashamed of my race (white).
Buying and selling human beings.
That is about the most heinous crime that I can think of, short of the holocaust.
The fact that it was "the Norm" and an ingrained part of American culture makes me very angry.
We still see and feel the effects of it. It still lurks, as it wasn't that long ago...

Django may be Hollywood, and seemingly over-the-top, but Great God, what a way to create awareness on this issue.
People are talking and will be talking about this one for a long time.
And that is Awesome.
Maybe something really great can happen out of it.

[Chris Knipp]

It did it for me, and it keeps resonating. I have to see it again just for the performances, which is true for all vintage Tarantino.

[cinemabon]

Seems to me that artists who venture to bring new visions of their art to the public are often chastised - Serrano's "Piss Christ" was perhaps one of the most controversial. There was another case where the first gay male nude was on display (I wish I could remember the particulars) that led to the Republican challenge against the National Endowment of the Arts (which has been under fire ever since and was a target in this years political campaign).

[Chris Knipp]

Seems to me that artists who venture to bring new visions of their art to the public are often chastised

That's certainly true. The first gay male nude was a bit more than that. "Piss Christ" could always be an issue, don't you think? Though I won't say what kind of ordure the Vatiican and the Pope are in right now.


American photographer Robert Mapplethorpe ignited a fierce culture war in 1989 when his exhibit "The Perfect Moment" was scheduled to go up at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. The exhibit, which featured classic portraits, floral studies and a section of extremely graphic homosexual S&M photos, had already been featured at museums in Philadelphia and Chicago without any protest. (The explicit photos were kept hidden in a separate, age-restricted area during each exhibit.)

But when Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina learned that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) had given the Philly museum $30,000 for Mapplethorpe's works, he cobbled together a group of 100 Congressmen who wrote an angry letter to the NEA. Not wanting to incite controversy, the Corcoran Gallery backed out of the show. Later, Mapplethorpe's work traveled to Cincinnati's Contemporary Arts Center (CAC), where it caused even more trouble. Mapplethorpe's photographs were used as evidence against CAC director Dennis Barrie, who was charged with obscenity. Luckily, Barrie was acquitted. So while Mapplethorpe wasn't directly persecuted (in fact, he died a few months before the NEA controversy even started), his art received more than its fair share of discrimination.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2063218_2063273_2063220,00.html #ixzz2MG3ynMdH

[Chris Knipp]

BUt later as I just learned from a documentary about the work of Sally Mann, her commercial New York gallery, Pace, cancelled plans to show her series "What Remains" because they thought it wouldn't sell because it's about death, it was the Corcoran Gallery that eventually showed the work.

[cinemabon]

Thanks, Chris. I had a hellva time last night trying to look up Ogelthorpe instead of Mapplethorpe (duh!). How ironic that I should come to live in North Carolina - the state where bigot Jesse Helms, who started the drive to defund NEA (National Endowment of the Arts), was senator and where, last year, voted by a narrow margain to constitutionally ban gay marriage (which I hope will be overturned by the Supreme Court).

[Chris Knipp]

I had to review when it was myself but I knew very well it was Robert Mapplethorpe. Besides the (2005?) Sally Man documentary I also recently watched this film about Mapplethorpse and his lover and photographic patron Sam Wagstaff, "Black White + Gray: A Portrait of Sam Wagstaff and Robert Mapplethorpe" (2007) (http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/movies/19blac.html?_r=0). I love photography. I had not seen these films before. I have seen one about southern art photographer William Eggleston, who is from Memphis. There are more of these now. They help me learn about a field that fascinates me.

[Johann]

"Piss Christ" is definitely a firestarter.
I actually have it as a postcard in a bible I own- just a sudden, jolting reminder of where I should place my Faith.
I am all for freedom of expression, but an artist should speak up about what he is doing/trying to say.
You risk condemnation if you don't.

[Chris Knipp]

No, you do not have to buy into religious "miracle" hoaxes. I won't. On the gullibility scale I rate low.

[Johann]

I bought that book on the Shroud precisely because I thought it was a hoax. I wanted to see what kind of "proof" they had for it's authenticity.

To my surprise, it had some meaty backup. Many scientists, forensics people and scholars have studied it, and they have determined that the Shroud simply cannot be the work of an artist. The bloodstains-flowing properly- by GRAVITY- the crown of thorns, the hair (Jewish styled hair of the day), the wound from the spear in his side, the whip marks all over his back and legs and rear torso, the spikes through the wrists and feet...all in perfect proportion and anatomically CORRECT.


The "image" wasn't pigment. No artist created it. No way an artist could've had all of the minute details 100% accurate, details that were not able to be seen until the advent of photography.
Again, I'm not trying to sway anyone. The Wikipedia page says the Shroud is "murky" in terms of authenticity. Decide for yourself.
You have free will.
:)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_turin

[cinemabon]

Don't you wonder, Chris, what WAS in the water at Massabielle?

[Johann]

No takers.

Godless Heathens.

LOL

[tabuno]

I was hoping for more of “Kill Bill” but it was not to be. There were many technical and cinematic flaws with this movie that made it hard to watch all the way through.

To begin with, the opening night scene was too artificially lighted, too lush, rich, and overly polished to authentically endow this movie with the respect and emotional and harsh anguish suffered by African Americans during this period, something that supposedly movie critics somehow overlooked and instead criticized “Lincoln” (2012) for its lack of depth in portraying the plight of African Americans during the Civil War. This glossy portrayal didn’t offer the impact of say “Schindler’s List” or “Saving Private Ryan.” I acknowledge that Tarantino made this movie in a spaghetti Western genre style, yet I didn’t quite view even this opening scene as a spaghetti Western (except for the music and zoom camera use). “Kill Bill” in many respects captured this genre better in its own unique way. Additionally, there was supposedly the surprising shooting of “something” in this scene that supposedly offered a rather unique and unusual violent act that was to impress I assume. Personally it seemed more pretentious and showing off more than anything else, a bit of unnecessary self-indulgence. The use of high English I suspect was also supposed to impress, but again it seems more ego and stylistic than an old fashioned spaghetti Western which seems more outdated nowadays unlike how The Artist (2011) presented a contemporary but closely hewn directorial touch to the original silent movie genre.

Later, there’s a shot of Django’s back but how its the impact on Christoph Waltz’s character Dr. King Schultz in some ways is incongruous with the doctor’s supposedly well versed intellect who by this time one would assume little would shock or surprise him by now. It seems false and artificial. One can also criticize the artistic license of inauthenticity of the more contemporary use of “nigger” and later “mother-f…..” as they were not likely to have been in use during the time period which the movie took place, especially if one intent of the movie was to provide a more meaningful, deeper look at the negro life and the difficulties experienced as an updated old look at expression of civil rights. Such criticisms seemed to have been allowed for movies such Argo instead.
Admittedly the second series of scenes contained a plot twist of originality, playfulness with effective use of much irony.
The flashback about Django and his wife is underdeveloped, providing only the most briefest of factual information about the sale and separation of his wife, leaving out important emotional and character outlines of Django that led to the sale in the first place, then there’s a incongruous, unexplained flashback of the wife that doesn’t seem to fit in the context or explanatory benefit of the movie, something better edited back into the original flashback. Tarantino’s use of flashbacks here and throughout the rest of the movie unlike in Kill Bill are sudden and very brief, more confusing instead of illuminating, more distracting and disruptive of the pacing of the movie than enhancing it. The non-linear, escape, and flashback seem poorly edited, coming across overly chaotic and interestingly enough not as frightening, intense, or revealing enough considering the director’s propensity of graphic violence. Oddly in some ways Tarantino directorial effort here is unusually more conservative and politically correct. Additionally the rapidity of the search results contradict Doctor’s earlier implication of an expected longer search that would have been perhaps more smoothly and consistently portrayed by a “series” of brief scenes of a “number” of plantations. Even the attempting lashing of a female African American slave was underplayed and too political correct unlike how sadistic behavior was portrayed in Schindler’s List (1993).

The second lethal encounter is very much stylized with slow motion and artistic dramatization which interestingly isn’t as graphic as others have reviewed this movie and tends to actually soften the impact to transform this movie more as a Western fairy tale. Tarantino follows up with an outrageous KKK scene that seem rather oddly out of character for this movie with its obvious comedic attempt at slapstick comedy, losing some of the elegance and intellectual humor of the tone of the movie with its ultimately somewhat predictable climax as well as the very unlikely shooting ability of Django which could have been more effectively and realistically and comedically written and directed. It is only later that Django gets to more realistically and somewhat belatedly and meaningfully work with a firearm. James Coburn in Our Man Flint (1966) better captured the same air and confidence in a playful, but diverse and entertaining way in an espionage genre. The Doctor’s ploy seems too monotone and rigid.

Tarantino’s use of a second night in the narrow canyon’s seems awfully similar set-wise as if it was the same location. At the same time, Tarantino missed out on an opportunity using only the more mundane storytelling sequence instead something more innovative as used with success with his animated insert as he did in Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003) but perhaps using a different animation technique so as not to appear repetitious. There’s lyrics to a “highway” a word that maybe didn’t exist during the time period and then there’s a brief shot of Django washing in a steamy river with his wife that is more confusing as a recalled memory as there’s no introduction or transition to the scene as if it were occurring contemporaneously with the current storyline.

Instead of the more controversial and emotionally conflicted scene, Django’s later shooting scene conveniently avoids any lingering interaction with a victim’s son maintaining a rather juvenile tone of the movie instead of a more layered and evolving state of movie-making.
There is more slaughter and splattering of red stuff, which might have been helped with use of wanted poster inserts as the men dying are only brief flickers without any tangible meaning a method that was used in the 50s. Interestingly there is only belated appearance of the emotive satisfaction of the actual deposit of bodies and “collection of money” a major reason for what these men are doing and that could have heightened the sense of activity and excitement for the audience along with increasing the rapidity of the timing of the sequence of scenes giving the movie more momentum. The money is never seen nor the satisfaction of real visceral “gold” and what happens to it.

Later there’s MISSISSIPPI crossing the big screen in extra large font almost obliterating the pictorial screen instead of Tarantino helping to further set the cultural tone with additional written narrative describing the nature of the racial bias of the place and time. The slaves seem so polished, shiny and oddly clean as they trod passed each other in two different directions which also seems unreal.
Tarantino’s use of very brief flashbacks (like a hot brand) seems to be more sterile, squeezing out the vivid, sustained cruelty and not allowing the audience a more entrenched and riveting emotional response allowing the feeling to continue to be engaged throughout the movie.

Tarantino’s allowance for the use of the word “f—k---“ also seems out of period character here and breaks the fantasy, especially the spaghetti western movie tone, moving the audience away from the movie itself into one of mild mental dissonance instead a sustained enjoyment of the movie.

The brief flash forward (of entering into a lavish mansion) also seems not well advertised and creates more confusion of the storyline, further breaking the audience from experiencing the movie itself and hindering the flow of the movie. And the introductory scene is shot from a distance, wider shot than a more effective closer shot that would have been more personable, and an intimate first impression shot that would seem to be an important nature and basis for the subterfuge occurring on screen.

The two negros fighting for entertainment in the mansion was one of the most uniquely shocking but powerful and psychologically compelling scenes of the movie, though the reaction of the negress is surprising as if such violence hadn’t occurred much before. There’s unintentionally funny shot of a negro flipping off the top of a large beer bottle and it almost seemed like a plastic cap, more likely a cork, they way it came off and sounded, unlike the more traditional use of the masculine grinding it off with one’s teeth. Admittedly this scene including the psychological business interplay between DiCaprio and the Doctor and Django is fascinating and captivating to experience. Later Django stands up to insults and this scene outdoors is also a tense and delightfully intriguing, richly suspenseful psychological action scene.

Tarantion continues to use odd inserts, non-chronologically with DeCaprio talking about a super “nigger” which only seems to throw the rhythm of the movie off unnecessarily without really contributing to the movie itself, almost as if attempting to show off how experimentally different and good he is which doesn’t seem to work here..

The use of rap music with the negro train of men is similar to the manner of contemporary, modern music used in A Knight’s Tale (2001) which only seemed more dissonant than additive to the movie, much like the contemporary use of language “nigger” and swear words that only serve to somewhat dislocate the audience from the movie instead of further engaging in the movie. Tarantino seems to be trying to incorporate fancy for fancy’s sake instead of the movie’s sake. Like cooking spaghetti and throwing it against a wall to see what sticks to the wall approach. But the final result is poor editing.

Django’s new persona with DiCapio’s character is unnervingly mix and confused, once talking like a negro and then later like a white slave trader. Apparently Tarantino didn’t take his own Dr. advice and have Django prepare properly for the role in the character’s character that would have been much more consistently believable and realistic as first impressions go and would have made the entire sequence more psychologically intense and biting. Then a little later, the Doctor’s warning concern seems out of place here because Django’s persona identifying with the white owners seems more in line with increasing not antagonizing the situation. This scene would have been better evidenced in the earlier parlor room instead. Unless there were more display of DeCaprio’s interaction with his own slaves, to justify the Doctor’s concern, it’s more likely that Django’s actions are more sensible and Doctor should have just shut up.
As for excessive graphic violence criticism, besides a lot of simulated blood splatters, even the dog eating scene was tame by horror standards..

By the time Leo DeCarpio arrives home, the entire scene is filled with a fascinating sense of psychological tension between the older black cantankerous man and a reveal about the disposition the revelation of Djanko’s wife. A very powerful and well set up, performed scene. The excellence of this scene is followed up with another strong musical accompaniment and detailed and descriptive table setting and nice lighting and set design preparation and presentation of a black woman for the Doctor at his request.

The movie continues along very well, until the old cantankerous black man suddenly even perhaps mysteriously surprisingly has this revelation himself somehow about Djanko and a black servant girl. Tarantino didn’t offer up any help for the audience to experience this same reveal, putting the audience at a disadvantage in the same way that Django and the Doctor has also put something over on DeCaprio, the audience itself is in some ways left in the dark and in an inferior position, with Tarantino calling all the shot. Such haughtiness calls up a mild sense of frustration that detracts from the enjoyment of the movie. Another minor annoyance is the long shot of the skull fragment that DeCaprio holds, even further away from the vantage point than even the Dr. and Djanko again putting the audience in a distant, inferior position, instead of allowing the audience to experience the usual sensation of the inside of a skull which would enhance the patently uncomfortable tension forming at this point in the movie.

During a crucial exploding scene, the Doctor’s demeanor changes into one that deviates from the spaghetti western persona and shifts the movie towards a more traditional psychological, western stereotypical drama. Even more strange enough is the final outcome which in some ways only raises an interesting question about why all the feigned drama setting up this scene in the first place, except to titillate and add unnecessarily to the psychological thrills of the movie, though not to the actual basic and more mundane storyline.

The beginning of the climatic scene appears to derive from a mostly manipulated and questionable premise about honor and motivation of the Doctor is insufficient and unconvincing to really credibly result in the subsequent necessity for a Tarantino film gun onslaught and splatter fest that is itself not all that interesting, more is not better. The attempt at moralistic, guilt, and repressed anger flashback wasn’t convincing enough. Earlier in the movie the Doctor had twice somewhat elegantly talked himself out of difficult situations in order to only later set up an ambush. Why change his routine, behavior pattern now? Tarantino attempted to replicate here in this movie his famous Kill Bill No. 2 martial arts massacre scene that doesn’t really translate as well in a gun-slingging format. Fewer but more detailed and reasonably believable quantity of violence in this instance would have enhanced the movie’s overall impact.

Towards the end of the movie Django convinces himself out of being sent to the mines, which perhaps a decade ago might have been a rather decent set up but nowadays with the sophisticated plots even found on television series, the script in this case seems pretty lame and he later shoots up a bunch of fellows which on the surface and at which at this point doesn’t make much rhyme or sense. Even the ending appeared mistimed and the explosive ending delayed for far too long. Even the lady of the house had a better way of disposing of garbage which Django apparently didn’t learn from.

[cinemabon]

First off, I believe you must be watching a DVD of "Django Unchained" and did not go to a screening of the film (which may have affected the way you perceived the lighting of certain scenes). I thought the cinematography for "Django" was spot on and effective in many ways (mentioned in my previous review), an homage to Tonino Delli Colli who shot many of Sergio Leone's films, to Enzo Barboni who shot the original "Django" and to western director John Ford, whose use of the horizontal line was apparent from the start of the film (Tarantino screens hundreds of westerns before shooting a single frame of footage).

The score was also an homage to composer Ennio Morricone (The good, the bad, and the Ugly) who composed for that film mentioned along with many other of Leone's films. Morricone sometimes used music that was counter punctual to the scene. Tarantino borrowed from his use of absurdism in several scenes to counterpoint the visual.

This tribute to the spaghetti western and to other filmmakers like John Ford culminated in a triumphant statement of both sarcasm and as a contemporary commentary on the treatment of blacks (African Americans) not just during the time portrayed (which has been loosely translated and not to be taken literally). Your objections to the film are broadly based. Some of your sentences ran on as if you had trouble writing down all of your objections at once:

"The flashback about Django and his wife is underdeveloped, providing only the most briefest of factual information about the sale and separation of his wife, leaving out important emotional and character outlines of Django that led to the sale in the first place, then there’s a incongruous, unexplained flashback of the wife that doesn’t seem to fit in the context or explanatory benefit of the movie, something better edited back into the original flashback."

Run-on sentences like that show me how you seemed to be hurried in your criticism while leaving out any attempt to convey meaning. If you are discussing why Tarantino used a brief flashback, it was only to tantalize. The story isn't about the girl. The story is about the title character. His motivation to find the girl is almost superfluous to his adventure with the good doctor/bounty hunter.

Tarantino's use of language is stylistic. It goes along with his use of blood, so much that after a while, the blood simply becomes window dressing - the color of red on a drab landscape.

"The movie continues along very well, until the old cantankerous black man suddenly even perhaps mysteriously surprisingly has this revelation himself somehow about Djanko and a black servant girl."

Once more, your ambiguity in regards to plot reveals is another sticking point to your critique, which makes me wonder if you skipped around certain parts (the movie continues along very well) until you found a passage that you found interesting. There was nothing mysterious or sudden as the to reveal that Samuel Jackson's character of "Stephen" (almost a take off on Steppin Fetchit, an "Uncle Tom" type character from early cinema, right down to the fluffy white hair and bald head, trademarks of the earlier portrayals and meant to be sarcastic). Stephen picks up on clues that Calvin Candie, his master, was missing. Hence, Stephen's importance to Candie as he actually managed the man's business affairs and took liberties that were far from the usual servant's place when he met with Candie in private.

I believe you should go back over your review, Tab, and do a little editing, perhaps even some revision. While I can understand a difference of opinion on any film, sometimes even the best of us misses the boat.

[Chris Knipp]

cinemabon, many thinks for your patience in replying, and you provide some good reminders. How silly of me not to see "Stephen" was a reference to Steppin Fetchit! The visuals of DJANGO UNCHAINED, the exteriors with horizons in particular, are indeed handsome homages to Westerns and Spaghetti Westerns. The score a homage too, as you say. Even without being a big fan of those films or having seen many of them, I could appreciate the nice references.

And indeed the 'review' you're replying to seems more a series of jottings than an organized essay. tabuno expressed doubts about being able to organize his many notes. In fact he hardly did, and clearly was too hasty in publishing his thoughts. In particular the sentence you quote, beginning "The movie continues along very well, until...." etc. seems so incoherent and unedited I felt unable to reply, but you have done so in a way that provides a further positive contribution to our discussion. Thanks!

Ultimately also I must say that"decent but flawed" is a profoundly inappropriate, out of tune, and odd reaction to any film by Quentin Tarantino. "Decent but flawed" is never what the attentive viewer comes away with after viewing a QT film. Those who really respond almost must either love him or hate him. It's the nature of the man and his style. One does not call the work of a brilliant provocateur "decent." Indecent, flawed, but brilliant and thought-provoking would be more germane. I walked out of the theater stunned and shaken. "Decent" would be the last word that would have come to mind.

"Technical and cinematic flaws" is an equally clueless remark. Again, that is not the criticism that can ever be leveled against Tarantino. He is a virtuoso of cinematic technique in every frame. What you can say is that you hate his style, that you find it irreverent and offensive. But technical flaws? No way!

[tabuno]

As my lengthy critique of this movie entails, I could probably spend an hour on each item of concern through editing and careful narrative selection which unfortunately since I'm not being paid well in my present job and this critique just putting it down took probably three hours to compile, I can't imagine myself spending 40 or 60 hours to really do the job necessary to elicit a decent, but likely flawed discussion of Django Unchained.

Suffice it to say, I didn't really like the movie that much, though I thought it a decent movie. But there was so much to dislike that I couldn't really keep my head together watching this movie, it made me so upset because of the all the problems I had with it. The best I can explain it is that I just don't like how Tarantino dealt with the material and how he presented it in this particular movie.

I could tell just from the trailers that I wasn't going to like it. I really tried. The movie had some good scenes, the overall plot made sense, but the details just weren't my style to enjoy. But thanks for your comments and responses and I wish I could have been better at explaining myself so that there was something one could really respond to. I just hope I don't have to suffer through another movie like this for long time. One every two years is enough. I think this makes it two movies in two years.

Now onto The Great Gatsby.

[cinemabon]

Out of the frying pan into the fire. I wouldn't touch "Gatsby" with a ten foot pole. I went to the Robert Redford/Mia Farrow/Bruce Dern/Sam Waterson 1974 version dressed in a white suit wearing a white fedora and sporting a gold crested cane. I left thinking, "Why did I ever like the F. Scott Fitzgerald book?" Whatever you have to say on that fiasco, I'd believe it. That's one remake doomed before they even take the vow. Fortunately, you won't have any comparisons to make... unless... did you ever read the novel? Take a second... that's about how long it takes to read it. Very popular with young impressionable co-eds.